Miranda Rights for Terrorists

Originally posted by greeneyedleo

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Given the fact that we've wrongfully accused innocent people of being terrorists, and after all this Guantanamo nonsense... I'm going to go ahead as token liberal to say- this is a good idea.

The Miranda rights are protecting American citizen's constitutional rights. Not sure how that would cover a foreign person taken into custody on foreign land during a "war".

On top of the fact, they are not US citizens protected under the US Constitution.....

Here is a perfect example of why this would not work:

The problem is you take that guy at three in the morning off of a compound right outside of Kabul where he’s building bomb materials to kill US soldiers, and read him his rights by four, and the Red Cross is saying take the lawyer – you have now created quite a confusion amongst the FBI, the CIA and the United States military. And confusion is the last thing you want in a combat zone.”
stopsocialism.wordpress.com...

These are not some DUI stops in the wee mornings on New Years Eve. These are people taken into custody on a battlefield - people who are not sitting around knitting sweaters for their kids. Many times there is no time to stand around asking questions and whether or not they want to contact their lawyer. And do we really want these people shutting up? They may have information that could save the lives of our soldiers over there.

Sorry, I will never support this. Bad idea! And they are not covered under our Constitution!



[edit on 6/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]

So what if they knew your neighbor was a terrorist?

And what if you do not live on a battlefield?

reply to post by mental modulator

So what if they knew your neighbor was a terrorist?

And what if you do not live on a battlefield?

[edit on 6/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 6/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Well, you captured them and called them criminals.

Just because we called them criminals doesn't mean we have to give them every right and freedom a US citizen would get. That's what the Geneva Conventions are for.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
You're holding them prisoner...sorry...your problem now. You wanna change the rules, you gotta face the music. And if you can't uphold the tenets of justice and common decency...well, then the bad guys won. Enjoy your new world.

There's upholding the tenets of justice and common decency, and then there is giving terrorists the same protection that a US citizen gets.

And I am enjoying my new world.

Originally posted by jerico65I wonder how much of these benefits our guys that were captured were given? They were just tortured, mutilated and then executed.

Like I said, if that means you are letting them write the rules, then the Bad Guys won. Your Bill of Rights and Constitution are shredded... Magna Carta rights are gone. Fella...you guys lost.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Like I said, if that means you are letting them write the rules, then the Bad Guys won. Your Bill of Rights and Constitution are shredded... Magna Carta rights are gone. Fella...you guys lost.

Not us; everyone. But that's the sort of thing that happens when a liberal is in office.

I'm really not sure where we can get off by saying that they're not legal enemy combatants, yet they're not criminals. In either case once captured they have certain rights specified either by the Geneva Conventions or a nation's laws. We can't just create a third class just for suspected terrorists. It's one or the other, either give them their rights as POW's or give them their rights as accused.

We simply cannot win a war on terrorism if we keep stooping down to their level. The war on terror has no definite objective, there's no nation that we can simply invade and sign a peace treaty with, there's no leader that we can kill to end this. It's entirely a moral war, we can't win if we become like the people that we're trying to fight against. Like they say, never challenge an idiot to an argument, he'll only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

It might be an inconvenience for us to read them their rights, but we're not going to win any other way than to take the high road.

Originally posted by greeneyedleo
reply to post by mental modulator

 

So what if they knew your neighbor was a terrorist?

And what if you do not live on a battlefield?

I really do not understand what you are asking me. But I will give it a shot.

If my neighbor was a terrorist, then I would hope they would take them away. I have had horrible neighbors that I did NOT hesitate to call the cops on (over and over).

And I do not live on a battlefield. The rules of engagement in foreign lands during a war - can not be compared to stupid criminals walking the streets of America.

Again, not sure I really understood your questions.

I do NOT live in a utopian world where I think every human being deserves equal treatment. Reality is.....there are evil people out there (Americans, foreigners, Christians, Muslims, etc etc) who do not care about you, or me or anyone else. And America is NOT to blame for all the evils in the world. There were evil people before America was ever formed.


[edit on 6/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]

[edit on 6/10/2009 by greeneyedleo]

Many of these men will now be tried and prosecuted under the American flag - American law for crimes against America, via intent.

BTW, the stupid criminals in the United States, chop up people, rape children, burn old people for fun, torture animals soooo.

To me; one set of laws and standards is fine, you do the crime you do the time. Since these men are not "soldiers" and are criminals, civil legalities will work fine IMO.

Miranda Rights begin the "contract" with the arrested here... This will prevent a technical defense on behalf of these TERRORISTS.

That is the way you should see it -

There will be NO technicalities for these guys to squeak by on when they are tried
here at home. Human rights organizations can go home, ACLU can do something else,
the world courts and bodies can shut up, etc...

Finally all of this back and forth can stop, these men can face charges, be gassed and/or jailed for life...

You should be happy cause now the terrorists will get to experience real hell on earth

SUPERMAX!

BBQed Terrorists!!!! ya!

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Like I said, if that means you are letting them write the rules, then the Bad Guys won. Your Bill of Rights and Constitution are shredded... Magna Carta rights are gone. Fella...you guys lost.

Not us; everyone. But that's the sort of thing that happens when a liberal is in office.

So Obama suspended Habeas Corpus, initiated all that bad stuff that currently defines the good ol' U S of A? It was the Liberal cartel pulling the Bushie's strings? Thanks for clearing that up. Guess I had it all wrong...my bad.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Like I said, if that means you are letting them write the rules, then the Bad Guys won. Your Bill of Rights and Constitution are shredded... Magna Carta rights are gone. Fella...you guys lost.

Not us; everyone. But that's the sort of thing that happens when a liberal is in office.

So Obama suspended Habeas Corpus, initiated all that bad stuff that currently defines the good ol' U S of A? It was the Liberal cartel pulling the Bushie's strings? Thanks for clearing that up. Guess I had it all wrong...my bad.

OF coarse it was!!!

Obama caused 9/11 and Clinton created the financial meltdown!!!

What if they are a citizen and they are a terrorist and they are accused of a crime?

Do they not get Miranda Rights just because they are terrorists?

Are terrorists not informed of essentially the same things that the Miranda Rights informed Americans of?

I'd like to be hopeful...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
So Obama suspended Habeas Corpus, initiated all that bad stuff that currently defines the good ol' U S of A? It was the Liberal cartel pulling the Bushie's strings? Thanks for clearing that up. Guess I had it all wrong...my bad.

Annnndddd Obama is doing what to fix all of Big Bad Bush's problems that he created?

That's what I thought.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Given the fact that we've wrongfully accused innocent people of being terrorists, and after all this Guantanamo nonsense... I'm going to go ahead as token liberal to say- this is a good idea.

Who says that we have in custody any so called "Wrongfully Accused" prisoners of war? The only evidence that I have seen in declaration of the innocence of the prisoners you are referring to, happens to be their own words. Seeing how it is quite acceptable and customary in their culture to lie about acts they partake in relating towards Islam, and seeing how this particular article deals with combatants taken directly from the battlefield, why would you not at least give the benefit of the doubt to our Men and Women in Uniform? Are their words to be taken at a lesser value than those of the enemy which we are currently fighting?

As for the Miranda Rights, this is pathetic. We have never in the History of Warfare EVER given such rights to enemy prisoners, nor should we ever now nor in the future. When you capture Prisoners of War, you hold them until the full and unconditional cessation of Hostilities, you do not simply sentence them or allow for them to go free. We need to stop comparing these individuals to common criminals, because they are quite far from such. The only matter which counts is how we TREAT our prisoners, and from everything which I have seen, we have by-in-large treated them with a great deal of respect. (For the note, making someone stand on a milk crate for interrogative purposes is not cruel, nor is a certain amount of humiliation.).

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
What if they are a citizen and they are a terrorist and they are accused of a crime?

Do they not get Miranda Rights just because they are terrorists?

Are terrorists not informed of essentially the same things that the Miranda Rights informed Americans of?

I'd like to be hopeful...

If you are an American citizen accused of Terrorism, and arrested in a Non-Combatant situation, then yes, I do believe you should in fact be afforded certain rights, but NOT if you are a foreigner, and/or most certainly NOT if you are taken prisoner on the battlefield.

These people were gathered up in mass in some cases. Some are likely innocent. The American way is innocent until proven guilty.

If you support just picking people up, and labeling them terrorist or criminal without having to prove the case, then your thinking is Un-American. Just gather them up and jail them huh? You too could be a terrorist sympathizer if you stand against the American way. We have trials here to prove guilt.

I was there. I know the chaos that ensued. Some of the detainees could be innocent of being terrorist. Sure there presence in certain areas certainly lend credence to them being of the enemy but do you think it is reasonable to jail anyone without proving them guilty? If you do, you think like them.

Being a true American is more than just being born here. It is a way of life. A way to treat others.

There has to be a point when detainee's transition from that status to either guilty or innocent of some crime.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Xeven]

Originally posted by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
What if they are a citizen and they are a terrorist and they are accused of a crime?

Do they not get Miranda Rights just because they are terrorists?

Are terrorists not informed of essentially the same things that the Miranda Rights informed Americans of?

I'd like to be hopeful...

If you are an American citizen accused of Terrorism, and arrested in a Non-Combatant situation, then yes, I do believe you should in fact be afforded certain rights, but NOT if you are a foreigner, and/or most certainly NOT if you are taken prisoner on the battlefield.

Why not???


Do you think further creating a third tier of punishment makes sense?

Because they are not soldiers...

I think maintaining and augmenting gives the criminals TOO much attention and merit.

any ol supermax or gas chair is good enough for a mass murderer or child raper...

We're either a nation of laws acting with integrity, or we're not.

Take your pick.

I don't think we need to lower ourselves to their level to win, personally.

Despite the occasional ability to strike a low blow, these guys are simply not the threat they are made out to be, they're a pathetic joke compared to the Fascists of the 40's, or the Communists that came after.

The Soviets had thermonuclear weapons 20 minutes from every major American city, yet we mostly managed to obey our own laws in countering the threat.

These clowns can't build thermonuclear-tipped ICBM's, the best they can do is send out some ignorant sucker with a bomb strapped to his chest, or the like.

We don't need to debase our own nation in order to beat them.

They are insignificant, when evaluated with a calculating eye.

[edit on 6/10/09 by xmotex]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
i dont exactly see why its a big deal. arent they already guaranteed those same rights?

Please enlighten us and tell how the terrorists are already guaranteed miranda rights?

I think it's in the DHS handbook right after it states socialist speech is protected but conservative speech is against the law, and an act of terrorism.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by ELECTRICkoolaidZOMBIEtest
i never said they were guaranteed miranda rights...just basically the things in the miranda rights were guaranteed under the geneva convention

First of all, terrorists have no rights under the Geneva Conventions.

Secondly, the point is that the Obama administration is ludicrous because miranda rights are only for U.S. citizens so trying to apply this to terrorists is frankly bizarre and a sign of mental instability.

Maybe this have something to do with this?

I think that in December 2005 your Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA)

It allows a detainee who has been found by the military to be properly held as an enemy combatant to challenge his incarceration in federal court. Under DTA section 1005(e)(2) - (the D.C. Circuit)

Last December, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It requires that the military must grant each detainee a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) at which to challenge his detention. Assuming the military’s CSRT process determines he is properly detained, the detainee then has a right to appeal to our civilian-justice system — specifically, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. And if that appeal is unsuccessful, the terrorist may also seek certiorari review by the Supreme Court.

This was a revolutionary innovation. As we’ve seen, Rasul did not (and could not) require Congress to allow enemy combatants access to the federal courts. Congress could lawfully have responded to Rasul by amending the habeas statute to make clear that al Qaeda terrorists have no more right to petition our courts in wartime than any other enemy prisoners have had in the preceding two-plus centuries. Instead, Congress responded by giving the enemy what are in every meaningful way habeas rights.

For the enemy combatants, habeas corpus, to borrow the Times’s articulation, is simply a “right to challenge their imprisonment” in federal court. So what does the DTA do? It allows a detainee who has been found by the military to be properly held as an enemy combatant to challenge his incarceration in federal court. Under DTA section 1005(e)(2), that court (the D.C. Circuit) is expressly empowered to determine whether the detention is in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States — which, of course, include treaties to whatever extent they may create individual rights.

Thus, the DTA has already granted to our enemies the very remedy critics claim is now being denied. Moreover, the new Military Commissions Act (MCA) does not repeal the DTA. It strengthens it. That is, because the Supreme Court’s Hamdan decision created confusion about whether the DTA was meant to apply retroactively to the 400-plus habeas petitions that were already filed, the MCA clarifies that all detainees who wish to challenge their imprisonment must follow the DTA procedure for doing so. But, importantly, the right to challenge imprisonment is itself reaffirmed.

That the DTA does not refer to this right as habeas corpus is irrelevant. It’s not the name of the remedy that counts; it’s the substance. The DTA gives the detainee exactly what habeas provides. Therefore, it would have been pointless for the MCA to add yet another round of habeas.

article.nationalreview.com...


June 12, 2008 Supreme Court ruling

On June 12, 2008, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to the protection of the United States Constitution.[84][85][86][87] Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the SCR Tribunals as "an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus" although "both the DTA and the SCRT process remain intact."[88]

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 10-6-2009 by Chevalerous]

This is a simple question to answer when you put it into context.

How many people think we should police the world?

If you answered yes then we need to hire about 50 thousand more FBI agents and send them to the war zone so they can investigate and gather evidence, we might be there for 50 more years, but hey you want to give them the same rights as American Citizens. Although I wouldn't mind a few hundred thousand lawyers going over there.

They are enemy combatants, terrorist, they are the enemy. They are the enemy and picked up in war. When our soldiers pick them up they take the back to the base so they can be questioned and find out if they are a threat, in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they were given the wrong information.

By saying that the enemy should be given the same rights as American citizens is saying that our troops cannot do their jobs. If these people are sitting in a prison chances are our troops saw them as a threat and removed them from play. In order to save American lives.

Did some bad apples in the military take it above and beyond and did things to some of these people that shouldn't have been done? Yes, we have all seen the pictures from Abu Gahrib. But I got news for you, this has happened in every war, Korea, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, Civil War, Revolutionary War. The reason why you don't know about it is because back then the troops weren't stupid and didn't take pictures, and they got rid of the evidence.

This policy of Obama's is nothing more than to appease and pander to his liberal bleeding heart base. Besides the inmates in Gitmo get to watch Al Jazeera(sp?) and probably have better living conditions than what they were living in.

Obama has done nothing about Renditions, which is basically exporting torture. Torture is against American law? Okay lets send them to some third world country where they do things 10 times as worse to them.

War is not pretty, Obama is trying to put lipstick on a pig. Because of a few out of line soldiers and their stupidity to take pictures of the crimes they committed, and a super biased Media that would do anything to make Bush look bad has caused all this mess.

The fact is most people don't know the truth, and truth is this is War and the only thing that is going to change is its going to make America look weak. These same things are going to happen.

Now instead of capturing these people, I would wager good odds that our troops will question the people they detain now get what ever info they can get and kill the people now. But that is the way it is.

That is what happens when you make a media circus out of something just to further a political agenda. I'm not saying giving torture legality was a good move because it wasn't, or condoning things Bush did, but that is the cruel hard facts of War.

War is not pretty, and people do things when they are young and dumb and end up having to carry that with them for the rest of their lives. People die and suffer, just the way it is, nothing is going to change that.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Also, apparently Congress was not briefed about this policy. How is this possible?

[edit on 6/10/2009 by WhatTheory]

Prediction:

Pelosi will be forced to admit she was briefed, but then claim the White House lied to her ...

This passed thanks to the thing called the Patriot Act which gave the President the power to not be questioned or put in check.